User talk:PsiSeveredHead
See also Archive 01 Tags? Er.. I don't remember what they're called, but something like tags. We don't have them here. You know, like article needs references and all. Is it because we don't need them, because the lore of StarCraft is so narrow, unlike big ones like Star Wars? But I think we need certain tags like information of this article deals with events scheduled for future: The contents may change drastically as more information is revealed. Especially with StarCraft II, you see. No one expected the medic to be excluded from the game, for example. So, what do you say? :StarShade 14:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC) :Hmm. That's what I meant, yes. As for StarCraft: Ghost, it's been cancelled (or at least suspended, but it's known as cancelled), we need something like "This article or section describes information from a cancelled game. The contents may not be true, as they may contain speculations." The only type of templates I saw here is that "based on speculation". And for StarCraft II, we need something like what I described above or what you linked on my talk page. :You know, do you think there are enough StarCraft quotations that we can use on those templates? You know, like Wookiepedia. Maybe something like "Once we dealt with the Protoss, we can do something about the Zerg. Arcturus'll come around. I know he will." for articles with SC2 info. (Okay, I've got a bad sense of application of dialogues.-_-) What do you think about that? ::StarShade 16:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC) ::Oh no, not that. There won't be enough quotes like that. Maybe some two or three at most, in which case we'll be able to change the quotes alternately. Can you find some suitable quotes and make some templates like that? It'll look nice. :::StarShade 04:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC) New unit spelling I was all set to move the page at "Infester" to "Infestor", when I noticed, in the history, that rather than the page just being set up with that spelling, you moved it from "or" to "er". Thought I'd ask first before I moved the page, where are you getting this spelling from? All the links on the page use the "or" spelling. If you've seen it as "er" somewhere more official, I'd be glad to leave it alone. Captain J 05:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC) In that case I will gladly wait until Blizzard confirms it one way or the other before taking any action. Cheers. Captain J 18:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Monaco Skin I think we should switch ASAP. I especially like the the new sidebar, being much more compact and all. The Smoke colour scheme continues to be nice. If we're considering the others, my first vote would be for Slate, then Brick. Meco 23:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Ditto with Meco, though my second vote would be Sapphire.--Hawki 06:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Behemoth image If that's from the cinematic, wouldn't that make them Overlords only? If we wanted to somehow incorporate that particular scene into the Overlord article, I'd be ok with it although I'd look into getting a better quality image of it. A while back the SC cinematic DVD came into my hands so I can take a look at it and get one. But that will probably have to wait until after mid-April when I get past the most recent real-life overload. Meco 03:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC) I've wondered about that image too. While we can't be sure it's a Behemoth, Overlords certainly don't have large spikes. A wallpaper on Battle.net also depicts large 'things' among Ovelords. I'd say that it could be incorporated into the Behemoth article, with a tag that makes it clear as a possibility. The direct link to the wallpaper is here, the page listing them here. Nothing conclusive, but I can't be sure the spikes are from an Overlord...--Hawki 12:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Hallo. I don't know about this image, but i must tell you, that the Behemoth is real, it is the most enormous zerg air unit on the Sickel Add on.--Marco1994 23:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks Whoa, I haven't been on in a while. Thanks for letting me know about the new fanfic wiki. I'll be busy once again as soon as the university workload lets me pick up writing and continue my little serial on starcraft.org. --ColonelChaos 21:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Re: Silly Articles Well, the thing is, we only have one 'core' article of this kind to go with and that's the TM. A single article doesn't warrant a catagory and it doesn't really fit into the catagory of Blizzard Entertainment. Obviously this is a serious wiki, but I took a nod from Wowwiki, how it has quite a few silly articles that are kept isolated. As long as such articles are kept within their own catagory and aren't referenced in any 'real articles' (eg. Azeroth not being listed among the planets of the K Sector or the mention of bovines in the Confederate Marine Corps), it's not going to really detract from the overall realism of the wiki unless someone has a phenomonal sequence of clicking on the random article option or mistakes said articles for fact.--Hawki 11:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Voice actors If IMDb is that much trouble, I'd be in favour of disregarding information that comes only from it. Meco 02:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I'm generally on the same line of thinking as Meco. Perhaps the voice actor listing could be regulated to the trivia section, where "IMDb lists x as being voiced by y." Not the usual referencing, but may convey the appropriate ambiguity.--Hawki 09:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC) So... I would like you to send me a full list of articles that require new pictures with a black background, also, please let me know if you want me to make the background to white. Hydralisk1337 Okay, I'm starting on the building images. Hydralisk1337 I don't understand, but I think you want me to make the full picture transparent, right? Hydralisk1337 Profile tools Hullo! Wikia is rolling out some new community oriented tools - currently seen on Halopedia and now also FFXIclopedia. SCW is high on our list of wikis to get the new stuff, especially with the upcoming launch of StarCraft II. Therefore I have arrived to help organise this with you :) Our current plan is to roll out the Profile tools - that is, Profiles, Avatars, Awards, Gifts, Friends and Userboxes - first, along with a tool called Site Scout. (There are more, but they will not be available until later.) In order to organise this we need for users and especially admins to take a look at all the help pages linked above, read up about it and be prepared for the changes. We would also like to talk about when you think you would be ready for the tools - around the end of next week is best for us. There will be a few things to set up - links to the help pages, announcements and some backend stuff. Not too big, but better to be in place in plenty of time. Hope this brightens your afternoon! Kirkburn (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Well, I've used the system before, and it seems worth having. Your profile did show up by the way.--Hawki 00:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC) I've seen some of the the new features in action over at Halopedia and the only misgivings I have is with the user level feature. For a while at Halopedia the overwhelming amount of activiy was with superfluous and pointless polls and blogs just to 'earn' points, and now that points for those things have been much reduced activity is more or less back to what it used to be before points. And of course the points-per-action seems arbitrary since not all actions of the same type are equal in 'value' or 'worth'. I wonder if the user levels can be totally disabled so no ranks show up whatsoever and, if so, I'd be in favour of doing so when those features are integrated into StarCraft wiki. Of course, given our limited number of users, we wouldn't have the sort of ridculous poll and blog spam even if we did have points up the wazoo. Meco 00:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC) :User levels won't be part of the first phase of rollout, just those modules listed above. Note that we've learnt a lot from the Halo experience, and you will be able to decide what points are awarded for what when it's added. :) Glad to hear the positive response! Kirkburn (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC) :See Forum:Profile tools! Kirkburn (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC) :Ping for update on Forum:Profile tools#Stuff to do - also sent this to your profile board :P Kirkburn (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Going away until the beginning of May I'll be away with, at best, limited internet access for the next few weeks. I'll be back at the beginning of May. Cheers! Meco 21:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Thought it best to leave this in my profile, but as there's already an entry... Anyway, I'm in the same position as Meco. Leaving today, will be back on April 27 (or 26th for those in the Western Hemisphere as per time zones). Anyway, cheers.--Hawki 01:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC) A separate article for.. the Zerg egg.. Do you think we need one? It has next to nothing influential in the lore, but it's an important factor in the gameplay. Like, say, its absurd armor that it retains from the Larval form until its mutation is complete. Though it might become a short article, we have some of them anyway, and we do have some important (in-game) info on it. By the way, in the Zerg template, which category should it fall to? Ground unit?^^; :StarShade 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Okay. Maybe not a separate article, but at least a decent section of its own. Well, then I guess I'll start working on it first. p.s.) By 'other members' in the Queen talk page, I meant other members in the web site I work in. A StarCraft II fansite, by the way, that is extremely fast on finding info. (But also surprisingly adept in getting things wrong, as they're Koreans and most don't even grasp what English info sources say.-_-) :StarShade 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Tokyopop image Since I'm stopping by for a bit... Concerning Tokyopop Three Years.jpg, I found the lower half of the image here. Your call if we need the overlayed text or not. Meco 04:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Re: Swarm Guardian appearance... A unit supposed as a Swarm Guardian was seen in this video http://dory.mncast.com/mncHMovie.swf?movieID=10018345320080310174057&skinNum=1 (see at around 2:40) It's possible that the unit isn't the Swarm Guardian after all, but it's likely to be it, seeing the overall appearance. (The front section of the creature in question quite resembles the original Guardian.) Also, the Swarm Guardian is a siege unit with no air attack, right? The creature doesn't fire back at the Battlecruisers and the Banshees at all, but pays attention only to the ground unit/structure (I don't recognize). This is likely to be because it simply can't, it being able to attack ground targets only. (Although there's no telling that it can, but ignored them because of the player's attack commands.) It hasn't been officially confirmed by Karune or anyone else, though. Shall we keep the description, or erase it until we're sure? :StarShade 23:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Hmm. You see, I only have Microsoft Photo Editor, which can only set transparencies by pixels, so I don't think it'll work. I could get photoshop for free, but unfortunately I have no intention of owning a computer program illegally. And I got some spare time, so after helping with flyes after high school today, I'll start on those Building pictures with the black backgrounds. Hydralisk1337 Re: Concept Art Template seems useful, so may as well keep it in. As for the Ghost, the 2194 designation is taken from the Samoengy image itself, namely the Ghost in the image. Looking at his right shoulder pad, the number 2194 can be seen painted on it.--Hawki 08:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Copyright The whole thing with the images got me checking up a few things. And once again, I'm a bit uneasy at the prospect (kinda dug my own grave there). However, there's two main pieces of evidence that can go either way; The first is the Sons of the Storm concent usage rules, seen here, which makes for the allowance of Blizzard related artwork on non-commercial websites. However, the "Blizzard related" aspect is a clear distinction from any personal artwork, suggesting that any personal art is not only unrelated to Blizzard's universes, but is not to be shown either. The other piece of evidence however, is that I cane across Drawgoon's homepage for concept art, featured here. The images are not only in better resoultion here (found out I got the Ghost number wrong and that his codename appears to be Phantom, but these images are listed under concept art. So even if they're personal, they're clearly related to something. And as of this point in time, StarCraft is the only sci-fi universe that Blizzard has. So, is it worth keeping them? Or do we play things safe?--Hawki 09:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC) A belated opinion on Robert Lee's concept art Now that I've stumbled across the relevant images in the file list and actually had to think about it... I think we should only include images from Lee's SotS StarCraft section and Lee's home StarCraft gallery. It seems that he had a reasonably clear idea which works were related to which project when he categorized the images in his home gallery. Meco 04:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC) There's a certain question about catagorisation though. If the personal sections were non-Blizzard, then why are there two pictures of Blackrock Spire in the section, a famous landform from Warcraft, not to mention quite a few orc vs. human images? I think that the personal images, while obviously not all pertaining to Blizzard's universes (eg. the comic section), are not without reference to them. And as long as they're not portrayed as definitive canon and considering the terms of fair use, it seems alright to keep them.--Hawki 05:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC) I suppose there's no problem with images that have clear and undisputable relevance, but it seems to me that for the stuff uploaded we're really stretching at trying to place them in the StarCraft universe. For example: Image:Dinbrain.jpg, where does that scream StarCraft? Even a little bunker would have clinched it, or a small sign saying "Mar Sara" or something, but as it stands it could be anything. Or the Samoengy stuff, when there's not one tiny iota concerning them in the existing canon. Or the Phantom, a generic name for a generic specops operative. If it was supposed to be a Ghost, why not just call it a Ghost? And the Image:Hornet.jpg, which again to me seems generic. Meco 06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Well for the record, each one of the images kinda screamed StarCraft to me. Dinbrain is reminiscent of a standard Terran mining settlement in a wasteland, the Samoengy harkened back to the aggressive alien races known to the Protoss in Shadow Hunters, the Ghost designation of 2794 keeps in with the tendency for all Ghost numbers to begin with 2 and the Hornet not only depicts the anti-gravity technology terrans are known for, but keeps with the tradition of naming hovercraft after viscious animals (Vulture, Cobra, Jackal...) There's far more images that are distinctly not StarCraft that the ones inclined to it stand out. Obviously there is ambiguity involved, hence the template at the top of each page. If someone went around editing pages such as "the Dominion came into hostile contact with the Samoengy" or "the hover technology found in the Vulture gave way to more advanced craft such as the Hornet" then yes, there would be an issue. But kept to their own articles, they hardly get in the way of distinct canon. Such a practice is already in place with StarCraft Beta information.--Hawki 07:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC) I don't think we have any evidence that Dinbrain or Hornet are StarCraft-related, so they should go into userpage space. The Samoengy are connected to Phantom, which seems like StarCraft art. The Samoengy pics hinge around it. If Phantom is a Ghost, then it's StarCraft-related, which puts Samoengy into StarCraft territory. So we just need to be sure about Phantom being a Ghost. That's just my opinion though. Kimera 757 (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Img. CP. templates Shiny new templates! Just one little thing: they sort the images into "Template:Blizzard Art". Should that be "Template:Blizzard Art images" instead? Meco 23:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Whoops. It was supposed to be "Category". >< Meco 23:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Template:SC1UnitUpgrade I think this one is good to go. I was hoping to roll out renamed templates for the mineral/gas/supply icons for each faction at the same time but in preparation for SC2 icons, but that can happen later. Meco 00:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC) I think basic optional fields go something like this: }| } }} The first line finds if "parameter" is non-empty or if it exists (or something like that, I'd have to go browse the MediaWiki documentation again.) If it does exist, then do something in the second line. In this case we display whatever 'parameter" is. The "do something" part can be multiple lines, in this case it's just one. The last line just terminates the "if" statement. Addendum: With optional fields one has to be careful how one uses background colour highlighting. (eg. One field has a light grey background, the next white, and so on.) Since not all fields may be used that could put a wrench in the nice pattern. Meco 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Image Shrinkage Just noticed you asked me about this. For images where I can't find a suitably low-res version I use a program called KolourPaint, just the basic 'paint' program that comes with KDE. (I'm not sure how Windows' paint program measures up.) * convert the original JPEG to 24-bit PNG before fiddling with it, otherwise we risk unnecessary loss of quality if we go from JPEG straight to JPEG. * prune the image of unnecessary pixels ("focus the image on the subject of interest") * pngcrush the PNG and convert it to 80% JPEG and see if it goes below 150kB (chances are if the PNG is >800kB it won't and making it lower-res is a must). If it is les than 150kB, we're good. If not, next step. * in KolourPaint there's a "resize/scale" feature. In KolourPaint there's an option called "smooth scale", which I use, as opposed to normal "scale" which makes the shrunk image fuzzy. I set the desired width and height and let the program spit out a new shrunk PNG. Then head back up to the last step. Yeah, it does take some doing. Meco 05:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC) RE: References being broken Yes iam aware of it. Most of the references are blank with no information in it. You can check those batches in blizzard forums. --SkyWalker 07:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC) : Yes i know. Iam not a beginner when it comes to wiki. I have edited many wikis. SC is not the first wiki iam editing. Also i have few suggestions to make. --SkyWalker 11:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Templates and Timelines Two things. Firstly, the more minor issue, in that I've replaced the term "sex" with "gender". It's pretty much the standard term used by databases (after all, it's purely a noun as opposed to possibly being a verb...) Anyway, I'll get to correcting it if need be or it can be reverted. As it's a copy and paste effort, any new CharBox formats for characters shouldn't have a problem. The other thing that caught my attention was the dating for birth and death. It's an appropriate system, but with Blizzard yet to release an official timeline, perhaps limited. Such dates can be worked out, but it's perhaps risky to do so. Blizzard played around with the Warcraft timeline a lot. Anyway, is it worth creating timeline articles for the dates in the template? Or should we hold back? And no, I don't intend to copy and paste the entire timeline from my profile. Some dates can be worked in (eg. if one does the math, its stated in Nova that the zerg invade Tarsonis on July 18th), but others certainly not.--Hawki 10:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Re: Overlord dropping Creep From One of the screenshots recently uploaded in the official website in StarCraft II. The third most recent one, I believe. The one in which Terran forces are attacking a Zerg base. The Overlord is seen near the top left corner. A lucky find, I'd say, though one could have found it easily. Anyway, I'll reference the source. template SC2structbox Does this only go on new structures in Starcraft 2? Like Dark Obelisk, but not structures in SC2 that also existed in SC1 (Fleet Beacon)? Thanks. w3stfa11 19:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Raziel is presumed the name of the new cerebrate (his brood name is presumed is Dracula's Brood) possibily idea the blizzard have in the game LEGACY OF KAIN UnitBoxes Yup, they're a bit fubared at the moment and I'm still working through it. But it should be fine to start using the npc/hero switches even if they behave strangely in the forthcoming muddling. Meco 01:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Fenix Fenix actually does fire twice as fast as a normal dragoon. Start the game, test it out, you'll see. I don't appreciate you deleting what was useful information. 208.125.218.194 01:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Database backup I've finally managed to download the wiki's article backup file from Wikia, just the most recent revisions without the revision history and all of that. (Fun Fact #1: We're sitting on about 7.3 MB worth of articles/templates/etc..) I suspect the backup maybe a bit old depending on how often Wikia runs the backup script on the server. Based on that backup file I've also managed to download most of the images using a program I had to download and compile. (Fun Fact #2: We have at least 762 images clocking in at just over 30 MB. Not sure where the other 300 went, but according to the error log a chunk of those must be deleted images.) Just so you know we have insurance in case something very unfortunate happens. Meco 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Re: Infoboxes Would it be possible to have a quotations category? Quotes are often put at the top of pages and extend from the top. Another option would be another template I guess. I know that Halopedia for instance places their Ratings template at the top right of pages. Maybe that could help.--Hawki 04:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Battle Naming Perhaps we might institute a naming scheme similar to the one found on Wookiepedia, like for the Battle of Coruscant. We'd probably want a notice saying that the names of the article/event is conjecture and used for organizational purposes only or some such. Meco 14:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Battle Naming Yes, you're right. So I should rename the Battles? Omega20 14:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Agreed. However, is it possible to rename the articles already created, or I have to create another in its place? Omega20 14:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Fall of Tarsonis One question. The Fall of Tarsonis is a battle or a conflict? There was several battles during the Fall of Tarsonis (the Battle of the Tarsonian Shipyards, the Battle of New Gettysburg (city), the Battle of New Gettysburg (space platform), the Battle on the Ion Cannon platform, etc). Omega20 15:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC) I thought that we could put a Box for the battles and other Box for the conflicts, as in Wookipedia. For example: Template:WarBox |previous= |conc= |next= |name= |image= |side1= |side2= |commanders1= |commanders2= |begin= |end= |place= |result= |battles= Omega20 15:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Well, I hope that the WarBox can be used for the major conflicts, anyway... Omega20 15:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Faction:Box In the Template: FactionBox I have added the date of restoration, as some organizations (as the Terran Dominion) are restored after a momentary dissolution. Omega20 16:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC) I thought that we could put a new FactionBox similar to that of Wookipedia (Wookipedia FactionBox)(with some changes, of course) because it would be more orderly. If you agree, I am willing to do that myself, if necessary. Omega20 07:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC) A personal question Hello, Psi. I just wanted to ask you if there is a list of editors who did the most edits- I think I saw it one time, but lost it. Thanks. SCV's report 14:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC) :I give you my thanks!SCV's report 11:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Re: Long time... No see, isn't it?^^ Well, I certainly didn't expect anyone to welcome me, let alone even notice I haven't been active for some time.^^;; Well, good to be here again, and thanks for the welcome. I've been busy nowadays. Actually I did find some spare time to come here, but never did I get a chance to contribute. My schoolworks eased up a bit, so one could expect me to start working again. Well, not actively, because I started my ninth grade and the works began increasing, but still, I can resume helping. By the way, I get the feeling that Blizzard began revealing more and more about StarCraft II recently. Perhaps I can pick up some new info on recent changes on SC2. (For example, the Thor has been redesigned to have slimmer legs. I don't remember seeing this mentioned.) p.s.) Um, now that I think about it, I think it wasn't so long ago that I commented about Sarge. :Starshade 13:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Er, I just checked it and it was actually a disabled Thor.;; Sorry about the confusion. :Starshade 13:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC) WWI news notes I made a couple of notes on SC2 from my visit to WWI - you can find them here: http://www.wowwiki.com/User:Kirkburn/WWI Kirkburn (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Hierarch rank In the BlizzCon 2007 StarCraft Lore Panel Editorial said that the range of Hierarch is equivalent to that of President. Should we put this in the article? Omega20 20:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Battlecruiser length In StarCraft: Uprising page, there's a line saying: The battlecruiser is described as "roughly two leagues long", making one about six miles long. The thing is, one league is about 400m: two leagues would be 800m, which is far less than 6 miles (which is nearly 7.5km). Is it a mistake? If the two numbers were interchanged I would understand, but I think that page needs to be revised. :Starshade 16:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC) :Kuk.. Sorry. Now that I checked it, you're right. It seems I had understood something wrongly. ::Starshade 18:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Stale Pages Is there any way to control what comes up under stale pages? Some of them (e.g. Monobook.css) are not pages that should be changed under most circumstances, others (e.g. HP) will probably never have info that requires the page be modified. Geekboy72 01:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Policy Question What is the policy regarding articles that are mostly about game strategies (e.g. Ultraling)? Are they OK or not? I've been editing under the assumption that they aren't OK, but I wanted to clarify. Geekboy72 22:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Khrillian and Airun Corsairs Understood. I use Firefox too, and I didn't think to look in IE. Geekboy72 20:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC) The alt-text is on the Corsair page even in Firefox, but for some reason it won't show when you hover. Geekboy72 20:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC) FF is following the HTML specification by not showing the "alt" text on a mouseover. ("title" is supposed to do that.) It's one of those liberties that MS took with it made IE back in the day. Meco 21:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC) KirkBot I've got KirkBot going through the 1000 longest pages atm - hopefully it's making non-controversial edits. I am checking them all. Kirkburn (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC) the useless "welcome" template It would be very nice, if you would stop putting the useless welcome template in the talk pages of every user. Such contributions are not only useless, but also irritating. If I wanted to create an account, I would do it. Edit button enhancement Hi! We are currently running a test on a few wikis which makes some changes to the Edit button in the Monaco skin. Our goal is to make it easier for new users to notice the edit button so that they can start making their first contributions. Would the StarCraft wiki be willing to participate? The change is simple and just turns the "Edit this page" link in to a tab similar to that around the User page and Discussion links in Monaco. If you want to see it in action, check out the Muppet wiki. If you're willing to help us out, all you need to do is add the following code to the bottom of MediaWiki:common.css: body.wikiaSkinMonaco #control_edit { background: #FFF; padding: 0 8px !important; height: 27px; margin-top: 5px; } body.wikiaSkinMonaco #control_edit div { display: none; } body.wikiaSkinMonaco #ca-edit { color: #000; font-family: arial; font-weight: bold; line-height: 27px; } Let me know what you think. Thanks! --KyleH (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC) PC room article Er, I think someone's already done it. What is written there is correct: 피씨방/피시방 (though the former is more correct in terms of pronunciation, although it is a kind of a slang, and the latter is the right way in terms of writing). :Starshade 04:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Re: Referencing images... Huh, oh yes.. I forgot. They're all from IGN, as written at the right bottom of all the renders. As for the portraits, I'm not certain. The person who uploaded the portraits didn't write the source. I'll just go and find out, and reference the sources as well. :(His Wrath falls from the Heavens. :Starshade) 13:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Image Policy Could you help me find the copyright for the Kerrigan Image ? I finded it on the site where it says that Starcraft II has becomed a trilogy and it shows a picture of Findlay and Raynor at JoeyRay's bar . How can I add the copyright ? SOrry I couldn't upload it. It is so bad? http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/850126/starcraft-2/images/starcraft-ii-20081010002948396.html Chat room referencing I think it might be good to reference it, especially if no one else has the info that needs to be referenced. Either that or wait for SCL to post all its BlizzCon reports of awesomeness and hope the info's reflected there. Maybe the chat room will even be archived to a more permanent location. Or maybe this comment is too late, lol. -capefeather 21:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Campaign Units I haven't added article characterization to the Goliath, Wraith and Vulture in regards to their appearances in StarCraft II yet, as I was wondering how we should approach them. In a sense, they could be characterized similarly to units such as the Hunter Killer from SCI, as NPC units. However, such units were never able to be built in the game, while it seems in the campaign of WoL, you can actually build them. So should they go on the unit template? If so, how? A "campaign only" line, or put in the existing sections with "campaign only" in brackets? I personally think a place on the template in some form is the best way to go, but thought to get feedback first.--Hawki 22:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC) A distinction between SCII and the Mercenaries units is, as you said, that the mercenaries units were replacements, while the SCII units are seperate and distinct. That being said however, it may be worth incorporating NPC units into the SCI templates if only to mirror the addition to the SCII ones.--Hawki 22:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC) In regards to the SC2 unit box, I think "Multiplayer?" should be the defining characteristic rather than campaign. All multiplayer units are in campaign, but not vice versa. As for the StarCraft II templates as a whole, I think that perhaps the units could be intergrated seemlessly. The StarCraft template has both original and Brood War templates on the same page. For SCII, the split between single and multiplayer seems to be the new dynamic, though admittedly we'll get even more units and structures with each expansion.--Hawki 00:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Yes, the Template: StarCraft II (Terran) and its counterparts are my main concern regarding presentation of units. I can't see a distinction between the excusive units and regular ones at the CnC wiki, as it's all in-universe. GDI, Nod and the scrin get a template each, with no major distinction for the sub-faction exclsuive ones that appeared in KW. Still, I take it what you mean is perhaps campaign sub-headings for the templates. Like for the Goliath and Vulture, there's the vehicles line, and a smaller heading underneath of "campaign only" perhaps? As for campaign only units later becoming regular ones, I don't think that's much of an issue. The Firebat and Medic for instance for in and out many times, and in each instance we shifted their place on the template from infantry to cancelled units. Their StarCraft II game unit sections give their histories of game inclusion/exclusion. The templates don't really have to.--Hawki 01:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Re: Ghost I take it by the campaign videos and TV screens being the ones recently featured at BC '08? Can't say I've ever seen anything resembling SC: G's intro, though I'll keep my eyes out. On the subject however, I have noticed a possible reference to Ghost on the TV, namely at the very last part where Kerrigan is caught on camera. The info blurb at the bottom mentions the "Vespene facility on northland." If this is regarding Mar Sara, and could be since Lockwell is the one reporting at the time, it could be a reference to the SC: G intro, with the zerg attacking the terrazine plant. Perhaps the two games occur concurrently. Still, as there's no info on said facility, it would be speculative to include a definite link between the two. Does seem odd in terms of Spectres, but still, Liberty's Crusade and Queen of Blades are novelizations of Episodes I and II in a sense, though function more as sidestories than direct novelizations. Perhaps the same will apply to Spectres, taking place in the background of Ghost. And hey, if we get a novel and game rather than one excluding the other, who's complaining? :)--Hawki 20:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Not sure about the Ghost intro itself, but I've found that elements are seen, namely at the Hyperion''s catina. On the screen above Raynor and Tosh and behind Tosh when Raynor talks to him SC: G gameplay can be seen, namely focussing on Nova.--Hawki 20:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Possibly the broodling image. You know that screenshot revealed in Blizzcon? Where terran and zerg armies engage each other. It was in this screenshot that the Missile Barrage ability of the battlecruiser was first seen. Anyway, to bottom left, a marauder is surrounded by two worm-like zerg creatures. Perhaps this is that unit swarm that swarm guardians spawn? :(His Wrath falls from the Heavens. :Starshade) 11:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Video Hey Psi. I wanted to give you a heads up on a new project that we, the Wikia Gaming Team, are starting. I'm going to the top gaming wikis and adding relevant videos (from YouTube) to a few of the most popular/visited articles. We'll be tracking their usage to find out if it could be an extra enhancement that people will use. If you have any questions, feedback, etc, feel free to drop me a message. JoePlay (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Re: Stellar Forces I think something can be said for ''Stellar Forces in regards to other fan created content in that it was sold as a commercial product (however briefly), was created by a company rather than a fan and generated a great deal of controversy. If it's put in a purely fan created category, it sets a precedent that the debate about the Sickle Mod could have set.--Hawki 12:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC) I apologies for sorta invading here, but Kimera mentioned the Antioch Chronicles in Stellar Forces entry. We are going to put TAC in the fan-content section? That would be the great idea IMO. XEL 13:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC) RE: flowchart template I've never seen one, and I couldn't find one anywhere, but you might be able to modify one of the many tournament bracket templates at Wikipedia to fit your needs. The only other solution I could think of would be to make an image of the flowchart and upload it, but then people wouldn't be able to click on a mission's name to go to its article, like you could using a modified bracket template. If you need any help with modifying, let me know, and I'll see what I can do. JoePlay (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC) :Good find with that flowchart extension. No doubt that it's safe and legal. You'll just have to get it installed. I'd recommend talking to Doug about it. If you haven't communicated with him before, he's the Wikia Gaming Team manager. He can talk to the appropriate technical people and keep you informed. JoePlay (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Re: Timeline Aliens Don't seem to recall a timeline article mentioning the "foo fighters' mentioned in LC. I can't imagine them having a place in the timeline anyway, as there's no definite date for their first appearance. I assume that they were protoss craft observing humanity, seen when terran space bordered protoss territory.--Hawki 06:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Plural unit pages Could we change the standard from ghosts to ghosts and use redirection, to make writing more straightforward? It makes no difference on the page. 20:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Sounds good 20:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Re: I, Mengsk Sorry about the late response. Flew back in yesterday and even timezone differences of a few hours do a number on your sleep patterns. Anyway: -About the duplicate site. It may be old news now, but it doesn't seem that big an issue apart from the duplicate user name. I assume that the relevant people have been contacted about it. -Mengsk's comments about seeing the zerg "over a year ago" would have pointed to Uprising occuring in 2498, but this assessment admittedly discarded his comments that Korhal was nuked "a generation ago." I think it's safe to go with the date in IM, as it's actually a definete one. I can't comment much, as I have yet to get my hands on IM or Frontline and won't until next Tuesday at the earliest probably and if they're not in, have to get them from Amazon. I've thus decided to abstain from performing edits relevant to the two books, as I'd be making edits without all the info avaliable. From what I can tell of the summary of IM however, the timeline seems to be: *2478: Arcturus graduates, enlists in CMC. *2480: Participates in assault on Sonyan. *2485: Assaults Onru Sigma, Guild Wars begin (which matches up with the timeframe given in Rebel Yell and the manual) *2489: Guild Wars end, martial law declared on Korhal, meets Valerian (wrong age however) *2491: Korhal destroyed *2497: Valerian and dad meet on VOM. *2500: Dominion established, *2501: Fighting on Umoja *2503: Juliana dies. This is a hypothetical idea, albeit with inconsistancies, specifically Valerian's age. As per FB, he should be born in 2483, yet if he's seven circa '89, his DOB has been pushed a year back. Granted, if the Guild Wars end in late 2489, allowing Arcturus travel time to go into 2490, then the problem is fixed. However, this screws up the date of Mengsk forming the Dominion (to 2501), which screws up the continuity further. I may be able to make my own conclusions if/when I get my hands on the book, but I'd guess that Valerian's age was simply an error on McNeil's part. If we accept this, that Valerian should have been six, then the timeline fits rather well as far as I can tell. However, at this point in time, I'll leave the editing in your hands. In the meantime, I can go back over Uprising, make notes (again) and shift ages, events, etc. BTW, out of curiosity, how would you rate IM and Frontline? I've gone over the facts, but I'm still interested in subjective opinion.--Hawki 23:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Running out of time to post (though I'll be popping into Sydney as a bonus-I'll be able to see if the books are in or not), but point taken about Valerian. If I had a choice I'd go with I, M for his DOB (if at all), as Golden didn't really demonstrate a good timeline understanding in Firstborn, what with the attacks and the claim that he and his mother took shelter in a Protectorate base when the Protectorate hadn't been founded yet. Overall, apart from Valerian, I can't fault McNeil's sequencing of events and as he stated in the interview on sclegacy, he made an effort to nail down the timeline.--Hawki 00:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Monthly Matters I finally got my hands on I, Mengsk, though as I resorted to downloading an e-book in hopes of getting a written version later, the phrase may not be the best one to use. Regardless, an issue I wish to discuss (again) is that of the timeline, now that I have a better understanding of it, how McNeil, while having a good grasp of the timeline as a whole, still wrote a number of curious discrepencies- At his graduation of '78, Arcturus tells Juliana that he'll be eighteen in a week's time. This would imply that he was thus born in 2460 rather than '61, which is what the SC manual suggests. Granted, there's the rest of December for him to have his birthday, but this seems to be stretching it. However, the alternate explanation, that Arcturus is referring to his birthday in early January as being the next week is also stretching it. Personally I go with the latter however, as while Blizzard didn't give an exact DOB, it's bordering on second guessing their intentions if we go by the former. December itself doesn't seem so ususual a graduation time as far as I can tell. The six months of study goes from a hypothetical Korhal summer (at the villa) to winter, which would go with the northern hemisphere norm (our northern hemisphere, Styrling could be in either and it's not worth speculating). That Arcturus studied for six months without seeing his family suggests that the Acadmey had big phases of study with holidays also in chunks. This would fit with stretching study to the end of the year. Not so surprising from my own experience, in that down here, public schools only break up a few days before Christmas. In turn, this would put the Close of Session in February, 2479, and so on. Regardless, I'm inclined to go with Arcturus' birthday in early January, as I feel it meshes in better with Blizzard's intentions for DOBs. By extension, I was able to get dates of month up to around the point where Feld tells Arcturus to essentially piss off after his less than desirable reunion with his fater. The second issue is that of Juliana's death. The prologue mentions 2478 as being twenty five years ago, which would put her death in 2503. However, it's also mentioned towards the end that eighteen months passed between the raid on Umoja and her death, which would put her death around July, 2502. I'm personally inclined towards the latter option, as it could conceviably be rounded up to three years, being in the later half of 2502. (A third issue is that of Valerian's birth. Still, identifying around five options over the course of the novel, I think it's best to wait for official word from Blizzard). Anyway, these are the ideas I got after going through the novel (more than once, to get the dates admittedly). Under normal circumstances I'd probably go ahead and edit the timeline myself. However, such an approach is based on one interpretation out of many and as you've had the book longer than I have, I thought it best to run it by you.--Hawki 02:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC) References Does every page with citations need a reference section? For comprehension on the example videos, would this formating be better?: # ↑ 2 barracks proxy at 1:10. 1 Boxer v Iloveoov Pimpest Play MSL 2006 Ro8. CholeraSC. March 26, 2008. Accessed 01-07-2009. It puts the link after the description but before the citation. (Alternatively, this means we can't reuse citations for multiple examples - eg if there was also a muta micro example in the above game, it would need a different citation and a different link, which could be confusing) Klomer 07:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Also, is there an easier way to set up references besides inlining? It makes the edit text harder to read. Klomer 07:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Heck, while I'm at it, is there style guide for referencing youtube as above? Is it the player or the video uploader? The date of the game or the date of the upload? The name of the video or something more relevant, since they are often cryptic? Klomer 07:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Articles and Editing Articles I recently had a discussion with Meco about the nature of gameplay articles, or rather, the strategy ones. Due to timezones, it could be awhile before he gets back, but as another admin, I thought it best to run the idea by you. The main issue with dividing articles between lore and gameplay is that in many cases, the lore sections are going to end up being stubs and by extension, make the article stubbish. For some units this isn't the case, such as the battlecruiser and Ghost. For others, especially SCII units, the only in-universe info we have is from Blizzard and for many units, in-universe info has been non-existant. Still, the strategy pages have merit, so what I proposed is that the "core articles" remain as they were-Marine leads to the original marine page, battlecruiser to the original battlecruiser page, etc. These pages same us from disambiguation links and keep both lore info and game info, the latter being sourced, factual info that either comes from common sense (eg. zerglings useless against air units-no kidding) and sourced info (eg. Blizzard's explicitly stated that Reapers are good raiders, so this is a sourced fact). With each sub-section however, a link exists to a strategy page, such as "for a more-indepth analysis of marine tactics, see here", the "here" being a link to Marine (SCI strategy) or something similar. Here, in addition to factual information, users can post tactics that aren't sourced. Kind of like WowWiki's approach to bosses-one default article, that lists bios, appearances, etc. and a tactics article for when these characters appear as bosses (eg. Kael, Illidan, Kil'jaeden). For the record, I think for units that appear in both SCI and SCII, two strategy articles can exist, as different strategies would be employed. In SCI, the marine is paired with medics and firebats, while in SCII, he's with marauders and medivac dropships. Not sure about units that only appear in-campaign such as the firebat, but time will tell. I won't go off on a tangent and implement this policy immediatly, as I'm guessing that Meco and Klomer discussed the original one with you too. Still, I thought it best to run it by fellow admins, as I feel the current approach is only going to result in lore stubs and game articles mixed with fact and theory.--Hawki 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Klomer here --- Interesting idea and you've got me thinking. I love the discussion. Predictably, I'm hesitant to treat the strategic information as less valuable then the rules. I'm not clear on usage patterns, but from my (strategy) perspective the traffic coming to the wiki is coming to understand how to play the game well, so having that information hidden behind links makes those users dismiss the site as not useful (as I did the first few times I came here). Most people will get the basic information from blizzard's site - the main reason to come here is that battle.net is strategically badly out of date and even misleading. So it seems like we should put that in easy reach. Personally, I don't find there to be a lot of debate about StarCraft 1 strategy. I realize that's not intuitive. But it's why the citations of actual examples are even more valuable for strategy - to both cite proven knowledge and teach how to replicate the play. The builds and unit strategies are well known and regularly demonstrated in tournament games amongst hundreds of players, which we cite. The basic StarCraft 1 play is very predictable and well understood - watching X top games, the vast majority have one do A, sometimes B, rarely C. There is an ideal. The variety of play comes more from maps and variations in player skill (which strategies they are better at. This is part of why SC is the awesomest game ever* ™ - it has a level of well understood, proven play to achieve yet a meta-game that encourages risk and exploration things alongside training and preparation. There could well be debate about what lower tier players should do, and we could offer advice on that. I agree Hawki that that should be on a different page is more ambiguous. What is better for one learning player (like me!), though, will depend largely on what their not pro at, and so be more subjective. Klomer 04:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Editing Something I meant to ask you in regards to articles from I, Mengsk, as there are a few red links around or no links at all. I managed to get my hands on FV2 but not I, M, but there's enough info on the book here for me to fill out red links, though these could be stubs. Would it be better for me to create such articles and mark them as stubs for later expansion? Or would it be better if I leave the novel's info alone till I get my hands on it?--Hawki 21:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)